Israel to Strike Iran

[Greenline]

Alright, so in Iranian TV and BBCPersia, this has been breaking news and also a shocking thing. We've also been given posters telling us where the safest places to hide are in case of a possible 'Zionist' Invasion. I know it's Russia Today, but I could not find a better source.

 

http://rt.com/news/israel-strike-iran-nuclear-739/

 

 

Tensions between Iran and Israel continue to escalate amid reports over the past week that Tel Aviv has drawn up plans for a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities before the US presidential election in November.

 

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the country’s new ambassador to China, Matan Vilnai, recently discussed precise estimates of Israeli casualties, and the timeframe of a possible war with Iran. A hypothetical war with Iran would probably last a month, and include about 500 estimated Israeli casualties from Iranian missile strikes, Vilnai told Israeli newspaper Maariv on Wednesday.

 

Though Israel has repeatedly threatened preemptive strikes against Iran over the country’s controversial nuclear program, this latest round of saber-rattling is taking place under slightly different circumstances.

 

A new, last-minute National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) update provided to the Obama administration mirrored Israeli intelligence that Iran had made bigger nuclear advances than previously thought, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on Sunday. Iran’s alleged progress towards nuclear weaponry was “far beyond the scope known” to UN inspectors, the report said.

 

Haaretz did not name any sources or confirm any information in its report, quoting a senior Israeli official who declined to be identified.

Tel Aviv seems to be taking action in support of its hawkish stance, testing emergency text-messaging services in some cities, and increasing the sale and distribution of gas-masks.  Recent polls also suggest that, while domestic Israeli opinion is still opposed to war against Iran without international support, that stance is gradually softening as the government seems to be preparing its citizens for war.

 

Their last chance to strike

 

Another consideration is the November US presidential election: Israeli officials would rather strike sooner, with Barack Obama in office, than risk the unknowns of a Mitt Romney administration.

 

"If Mitt Romney is elected, history shows that presidents do not undertake dramatic operations in their first year in office unless forced to," the unidentified Israeli official told Haaretz.

 

The current instability in Syria, Iran’s biggest regional ally, lends credence to the theory that Israel’s best opportunity to strike may be imminent.

Leon Panetta and the Obama administration have signaled no change in their preference that the situation to be resolved through diplomacy, leading to the conclusion that if Israel finally decides to strike, it will do so alone.

 

“I've said this before, I'll say it now: I don't believe they made a decision as to whether or not they will – they will go in and attack Iran at this time," Panetta told reporters at a press conference on Tuesday. "Obviously, they're an independent, they're a sovereign country. They'll ultimately make decisions based on what they think is in their national security interest…The reality is that we still think there is room to continue to negotiate."

 

But without US backing, Israel’s repeated threats to attack Iran’s nuclear sites are being met with increasing skepticism.

Aaron David Miller, a former State Department official, echoed that sentiment, telling Bloomberg Businessweek that the Israelis are “almost in the comic situation of threatening to strike repeatedly – this is the third threat in three months – but nothing ever happens, which in my view is damaging to their credibility.” 

Tehran dismissed the latest round of Israeli threats as “stupid.”

 

“Even if some officials in the illegitimate regime [israel] want to carry out such a stupid action, there are those inside [the Israeli government] who won't allow it because they know they would suffer very severe consequences from such an act," Iranian ministry spokesperson Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters on Tuesday.

 

So, in short, the article here and BBCPersia and other news sources in Iran are saying that Israel has been researching the terms of the attacks and that 'this latest round of saber-rattling is taking place under slightly different circumstances.', also, the situation in Syria (Iran's last regional and true ally) is worsening, not to mention the Iranian embassy in Canada being shut down suddenly.

 

Yes, I am aware the article is a few weeks old, but it's breaking news in Iran and it's all the TV is talking about. Including the fact that we've been given instructions on what to do in case of a 'Zionist Invasion'.

 

http://www.iranembassy.ca/ Look at this website.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Greenline

[Zee]

Well, this certainly is wonderful news. I'm sure everything is going to be just fine. Yeah.

[Straznicy]

God I wish Israel would just self-implode already.

[Greenline]

 

God I wish Israel would just self-implode already.

Nah, they can self-implode after they fix us up. Contrary to what most may think, most of us are pretty happy about this. Although the future is uncertain, the chances of the Prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi II returning - or a full secular democracy - coming to Iran are pretty high after this. So, in the end, most hope that although there will be casualties, we'll have a scenario that's similar to the Yom Kippur war (in length and civilian casualties) and we will possibly be freed from this regime.

[EscoLehGo]

How would Israel go about invading a country as large as Iran? I think they aim to just f*ck some sh*t up and then leave, one hitter quitter style.

[Greenline]

 

How would Israel go about invading a country as large as Iran? I think they aim to just f*ck some sh*t up and then leave, one hitter quitter style.

The same way Iran invaded Israel and a big part of Asia 2,500 years ago , if it can be done with horses it can be done today.

 

Anyways, you probably are correct, but no one spoke of an invasion (only the Iranian government by calling this a possible 'Zionist Invasion'). Strike is the key word here. Also, Israel is capable of doing many things, like fending off almost the entire Arab world and taking over some territory on the side.

[Typhus]

There's no way they'd attack Iran. The occasional assassination, yes, but a full scale attack?

They must see that their treatment of the Palestinians has sullied their name, attacking Iran will only make a currently unpopular regime into a rallying point for Islamists worldwide. There is no way they'll do it, no one could be that foolish.

[Carbine23]

and what are the chances of americans getting involved.....

[sivispacem]

I think this is absolute sh*te, to be brutally honest. Israel probably won't attack without the support of allies, not in the case of an adversary as militarily strong as Iran. There's no arbitrary point at which an attack would take place- surely Israel would have struck prior to any news reporting like this? And even if they do attack, it will be a targeted strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities. Far from an invasion, which would be a strategic and logistical nightmare and likely zero-sum game.

[Greenline]

I think this is absolute sh*te, to be brutally honest. Israel probably won't attack without the support of allies, not in the case of an adversary as militarily strong as Iran. There's no arbitrary point at which an attack would take place- surely Israel would have struck prior to any news reporting like this? And even if they do attack, it will be a targeted strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities. Far from an invasion, which would be a strategic and logistical nightmare and likely zero-sum game.

True, very true.

 

But, again, what made me post this topic was the fact that we are being given leaflets, surely they're scared something is going on if they're going to break their wall of 'we are invincible' propaganda. What's your opinion on this, if you have one?

 

Oh, and, invasion wasn't mentioned.

[Dingdongs]

I think this is absolute sh*te, to be brutally honest. Israel probably won't attack without the support of allies, not in the case of an adversary as militarily strong as Iran. There's no arbitrary point at which an attack would take place- surely Israel would have struck prior to any news reporting like this? And even if they do attack, it will be a targeted strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities. Far from an invasion, which would be a strategic and logistical nightmare and likely zero-sum game.

On top of that the source is Russia Today.

[sivispacem]

You mentioned a Zionist invasion in the first line of your post

[Greenline]

 

You mentioned a Zionist invasion in the first line of your post

Ah, I see, hehe. I was just quoting what it said on the leaflets we were given.

 

@Irviding: Yeah, I apologized for that once already, but my personal source were the government leaflets and BBCPersia. I think Voice of America - Persian News Network had something about it, too.

[Johnny_Cash1983]

and what are the chances of americans getting involved.....

100%

They have involve bot.

 

[Zee]

Give the lad a break after all he's got a sh*te internet connection and can only read those bloody pamphlets for info. I for one hope no matter what the outcome there are as little causalities as possible, though I doubt Israel will actually invade.

[Crewnordin]

It is not Israel vs Iran. It will be USA vs Iran and Israel will just lay back and see the war.

[Brad]

Israel hypothetical strategic plans for a war with Iran, whether conventional invasion, naval warfare or surgical airstrike have always been on the table and have always been muttered, constructed and assessed in Tel Aviv. This just sounds like another diplomatic/media flashpoint n which the hot air between the two states is intensified for a brief period of time and then exaggerated the following two months later. It just seems to be a simple harmonic oscillation between the two states.

[El Zilcho]

Two regimes I care for very little - ideally both sides should lose with their people unharmed, but as that is impossible I'll leave it at 'Isreal won't do anything as audacious as that, particularly without backing', which has already been stated but I'll reiterate it nonetheless.

[Creed Bratton]

And once again nothing will be gained. And once again they will only notice that after the war. And then some other country will do it again. Ad infinutum.

[Mr_Leone]

More pointless obliteration of innocent fellow brothers that will achieve nothing whatsoever.

[El Dildo]

well it's about time.

 

let's get this World War 3 started already.

[MIKON8ERISBACK]

Great! That means that the US will sucked into it and that means World War III. That's a pivotal time for the election. But the fact is that Israel is one of America's best friends in the whole world, however, they can't get sucked into a war that they started with a country that they know is extremely hostile.

[Greenline]

Yeah.. WWIII is absolutely not what an Israeli attack on Iran is going to be.

 

Lay off the CoD.

[MIKON8ERISBACK]

Yeah.. WWIII is absolutely not what an Israeli attack on Iran is going to be.

 

Lay off the CoD.

I hardly play CoD at all. I'm a Grand Theft Auto guy.

[El Dildo]

 

Yeah.. WWIII is absolutely not what an Israeli attack on Iran is going to be.

 

Lay off the CoD.

you don't know much about the history between Israel and Iran, do you?

 

the WW3 hypothesis has nothing to do with a Call of Duty fantasy.

it's just basic history.

 

most foreign policy experts agree that Israel will NEVER allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons systems.

if Israel thought that Iran was getting very close, they would strike first in an attempt to prevent its completion. and most of these same experts agree that if a nasty war broke out between these 2 states, the Western powers would be dragged into the conflict. this is because Pakistan would be forced to choose between a rock and a hard place and Palestinians would likely rally to the side of the Iranian's.

 

this powder keg could easily start the next world war.

if you don't think so, you're just ignorant.

 

no one is saying that it's going to happen 100%

but it's likely.

[Greenline]

 

Yeah.. WWIII is absolutely not what an Israeli attack on Iran is going to be.

 

Lay off the CoD.

you don't know much about the history between Israel and Iran, do you?

 

the WW3 hypothesis has nothing to do with a Call of Duty fantasy.

it's just basic history.

 

most foreign policy experts agree that Israel will NEVER allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons systems.

if Israel thought that Iran was getting very close, they would strike first in an attempt to prevent its completion. and most of these same experts agree that if a nasty war broke out between these 2 states, the Western powers would be dragged into the conflict. this is because Pakistan would be forced to choose between a rock and a hard place and Palestinians would likely rally to the side of the Iranian's.

 

this powder keg could easily start the next world war.

if you don't think so, you're just ignorant.

 

no one is saying that it's going to happen 100%

but it's likely.

So, you honestly think that China and Russia (let's ignore Palestine, as they don't have the strength to wage WWIII) will side with Iran and continue to provide Iran with weaponry and training if such a sensitive conflict broke out? The US would have to provoke China and Russia big-time to make them do such a thing.

 

Yes, maybe you'll have a very long conflict in Iran, but a World War? The US would have to piss a fair share of people off in order for them to be shortsighted enough to side with an unstable country such as Iran. And, if you're going to look at the US/NATO side of the spectrum, something like that has happened before, twice.

 

And yes, I'm well-informed about the history of Persia and her relationship with Israel.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Greenline

[sivispacem]

That isn't going to cause a Third World War, though. I honestly cannot think of another nation who would wade in on the side of Iran, save for Syria (itself in the process of imploding) in the event of a protracted conflict- even if NATO waded in on the side of Israel. Russia know better than to take a gamble on the Islamic Republic, and China are militarily pacifist.

[MWC]

jews and muslims nuking themselves to extinction go right ahead already xD

[El Dildo]

 

So, you honestly think that China and Russia (let's ignore Palestine, as they don't have the strength to wage WWIII) will side with Iran and continue to provide Iran with weaponry and training if such a sensitive conflict broke out? The US would have to provoke China and Russia big-time to make them do such a thing.

I'm only saying that it's entirely possible for the Israel / Middle-East conflict to become global because there are so many competing interests on both sides.

 

and of course there's the religious factor.

religion makes good people do crazy things.

[K^2]

So, you honestly think that China and Russia (let's ignore Palestine, as they don't have the strength to wage WWIII) will side with Iran and continue to provide Iran with weaponry and training if such a sensitive conflict broke out? The US would have to provoke China and Russia big-time to make them do such a thing.

I don't know about China, but Russia will keep supplying Iran with weapons at a major discount prices if they think it will prolong the conflict. Russia is the main alternative to Middle East as far as oil goes, and it is Russia's main export. They will never participate in the war directly, but they'll do everything they can to make it into a big one.

 

If there is any truth to the rumors of Israel preparing an attack, you will read about Russia supplying Iran with modern AA systems in the next month or so. Russian AA might just be enough to prevent an airstrike, forcing ground operations and turning this into a major mess. Israel will bring in their tanks, many of these will get torched with Russian RPGs... It's unlikely to be fast and painless, sorry.